https://blog.qassim.uk/https://blog.qassim.uk/favicon.pngqassim.ukhttps://blog.qassim.uk/Ghost 2.9Wed, 20 Feb 2019 14:23:04 GMT60This year, 2018, marked 10 years since I left school, it doesn't feel that long ago and it's quite scary. This isn't something I mentally took any note of, it wasn't something I was counting down to, it didn't stand out to me as a notable moment whatsoever.

This year, 2018, marked 10 years since I left school, it doesn't feel that long ago and it's quite scary. This isn't something I mentally took any note of, it wasn't something I was counting down to, it didn't stand out to me as a notable moment whatsoever.

But looking back on this year, I think in some way hitting this milestone has been felt. A lot of the media I've consumed this year, even if having no real relevance to anything I experienced during my time at school I've been able to string some nostalgic connection to from that time.

I've been back into music I listened to a lot of in school, I've been revisiting films, TV shows and games from that time, and if that wasn't enough nostalgia, the fantastic podcast 'Berkhamsted revisited' came out this year - marking the same 'anniversary' of 10 years since leaving school for one of the hosts - Laura Kirk - who reads from the diary she kept for all those years. Bringing the whole 'growing up' experience back for someone of my age (precisely in this case).

It is also the year that the 'coming of age' genre finally began to make sense to me. I've enjoyed plenty of these films in the past, but I feel now I'm able to look at them with a retrospective view on my own experiences.

Lady Bird is a coming of age film, but I'd hardly call it typical of the genre. For one, Lady Bird feels very real (so, atypical). The production, tone, visual style and setting feel very familiar - but more so - the characters and dialogue are exceptionally written and acted. It's funny, warm, awkward and genuine.

The film has a couple of central themes, which perhaps could just be one central theme, maybe. My problem is that during the classes where I'd have been able to develop the skills to properly analyse literature or film like this, I was either messing around or asleep. So, I'm sorry if I'm missing a lot here, I don't know what I'm talking about.

But one of the themes that stood out for me is one that is very literally spelled out, so even I could pick up on it. It's about the attention you pay to things, places and people, or about the attention you get from others. The titular character, "Lady Bird" (Christine) emphasises through the film her dislike of her hometown (Sacramento, California) and desire to get away.

Lady Bird writes an essay about Sacramento and another character (a teacher at school) reviews her work and makes the observation that she must love her hometown due to the 'affection' and 'care' in her writing. Confused, Lady Bird questions this, saying she was just 'describing it'. Persisting, her teacher repeats that "it comes across as love", Lady Bird repudiates "I guess I just pay attention". Her teacher suggests that 'Love' and 'Attention' are the same thing.

To explain how I think this wraps up the film, I need to take a few steps back. Lady Bird isn't a film about the character "Lady Bird". I mean it is, but it's not her own. It's arguably a film in large part about the relationship between her and her mother and the film does shift to the mother's perspective quite frequently, not necessarily directly, and "Lady Bird" is still primarily the lens in which we look through.

The antagonistic and kinda sad relationship between "Lady Bird" and her mother is where these themes and ideas manifest so strongly towards the end of the film. Where Lady Bird, now away from home and her family, describes her experiences driving around her hometown for the first time. She describes it as emotional, listing the mundane details about it that suggests the new perspective gave her an appreciation of it that she perhaps didn't have before.

It concludes simply that how she views her mother and their relationship has changed by the same realisation she had about her hometown.

I think why Lady Bird feels like it fits into this year's series of media which have evoked some kind of nostalgia, for thinking back about my years growing up, at school, and since leaving, is that especially the 'hometown' perspective is one I relate with. This year, I've walked around old areas of my hometown where I used to play with friends, go fishing, explore, build stuff, ride our bikes and stay out until we could no longer bear the midges biting us.

I was reminded that it was a good place to grow up, despite not particularly wanting to be there now. Where I used to find it unremarkable, I now look at it much more favourably and my attitude to it now is that it very well may be in my plans for the future.

Lady Bird's central plot perhaps doesn't earn it the record breaking Rotten Tomatoes score it held for a while, but it's an absolutely quality film in so many other ways which go a long way to justifying those scores.

]]>There's this narrative building in the video game industry about Valve and Steam, and it's quite an odd one. That because it's the largest PC game platform, it somehow doesn't deserve its position, or even more stupidly that it is a 'monopoly'.

People seem to assume that the smaller players

]]>https://blog.qassim.uk/2018/12/08/new-pc-game-stores-and-launchers-are-good-but-its-not-always-competition/5c0c03444fc41a07e3a70720Sat, 08 Dec 2018 18:15:52 GMTThere's this narrative building in the video game industry about Valve and Steam, and it's quite an odd one. That because it's the largest PC game platform, it somehow doesn't deserve its position, or even more stupidly that it is a 'monopoly'.

People seem to assume that the smaller players are doing things better, but the largest players are just abusing their position to remain on top. But in the market of PC game stores/platforms, I can't see that to be true with Valve and Steam.

I'll start with the stupidest claim: that Steam is a monopoly. It just isn't, by any measurement. It's the most popular by far, but a monopoly it is not. There's plenty of alternatives for consumers to choose from, developers are free to distribute elsewhere, some of the biggest games in the industry are simply not on Steam (they began and grew outside of Steam) and Valve does not employ policies which would incentivise developers to not release their games elsewhere.

Valve’s Anna Sweet told us. “Whenever we talk to third-party partners, we encourage them to put their games in as many places as possible, including not on our platforms," she said. "Because we think that customers are everywhere, and they want to put their games wherever customers are."

Secondly, in terms of features offered, ecosystem, rate of development - there's no competitor that comes close to matching the breadth or depth that Steam offers. The best competitors have been able to offer are nicer looking clients and exclusive games.

However, this post isn't about how great Valve and Steam is, there's plenty they need to work on and they're often very frustrating in many ways. Instead, this post is about the narrative.

This narrative has been emboldened recently by the announcement and release of the Epic Games Store, which lead with a new revenue share system. The industry has largely settled on 30/70 split to developers, that's across games consoles, other PC game stores, iPhone, Android, etc, etc. Epic announced they'll be taking a smaller cut at 12/88 to the developers, with Unreal Engine 4 games getting further incentives.

This is cool, it offers more choice to developers and it's a good incentive. This is legitimate competition to Steam, it provides choice. No problems here. It probably played a big role in Valve's new revenue share system, in which the share Valve takes reduces to 20% for games which make over $50m in revenue. That's competition working as we hope.

The problems begin with Epic choosing to incentivise developers to not release their game on Steam. It has already happened with a few games and they've signalled it will continue to happen. Now, I'll be clear - Epic are well within their rights to do this - it makes business sense especially as you're starting out to try and grab some attention, it's also perfectly fine for developers to accept these deals.

But let's not pretend this provides competition for consumers. It does not, it does the opposite. It creates a situation where, if I want to play a particular third party game, then I don't have a choice. I can't choose to buy that game on a platform which offers the best experience. Stores buying exclusive rights to games they didn't create does nothing to improve the market for me as a consumer, it instead degrades it

I'm not a "Steam or no buy" person. I have all the other stores and launchers installed on my system, I buy games from platforms I think are bad, such as the Windows 10 Store, I'm happy to do so. But would I buy those games on Steam instead if they were there? Absolutely, because it remains the best platform.

Epic are well aware that their platform isn't as good as Steam from a consumer perspective, so they have to find ways to remove the choice of the consumer in order to force their hand into picking the Epic Games Store. I'm not going to accept the narrative that this is good for me.

I'm happy that Epic are entering this particular race, I think they could in the future offer a compelling alternative - but for now - they aren't and instead are just being mildly irritating.

It's worth noting that I think first party exclusives are fairer. I think it's less reasonable to expect companies to help grow competitors by releasing their own games on competing stores. Though, Valve did also release their games on Origin before EA pulled out of Steam.

]]>Red Dead Redemption 2 (RDR2) is genuinely a milestone for the games industry, it will be a game that is looked back on as one that raised the bar in a fair few important ways. Personally, however, I'm still not sure what I think of it.

It's definitely very good]]>https://blog.qassim.uk/2018/12/02/red-dead-redemption-2/5bf98f844fc41a07e3a70608Sun, 02 Dec 2018 00:06:23 GMTRed Dead Redemption 2 (RDR2) is genuinely a milestone for the games industry, it will be a game that is looked back on as one that raised the bar in a fair few important ways. Personally, however, I'm still not sure what I think of it.

It's definitely very good and I definitely enjoyed it a lot, but in ways I usually judge games, I'm not sure it left as big of an impact as some other games I've played this year. I'm also not sure it hasn't.

I finished the campaign a few weeks back and I haven't played it since, mostly because I want to save more of the 'rest' of the game for when it hopefully comes out on PC. However, I have been thinking about it quite a bit in these past three weeks, which is usually a good sign that a game has left a significant positive impression on me.

A change of pace

I have a theory on why I am struggling to conclude my thoughts on this game, and I think it's possibly that in many ways, this game is very unconventional (for a gigantic AAA blockbuster). It's a game that, through a greater focus on simulation, forces a different pace than your typical AAA action game, even from your typical Rockstar game.

It notably caused frustrations among many players in their initial impressions, the game does a lot to prevent you from rushing around. It guides you into a more methodical, careful and deliberate style of play - from the controls (which I think are a mistake), to the real consequences in the simulation to you and your character.

In the truest sense of the description, this is a role playing game. Yeah, it doesn't necessarily tick all the boxes of what we traditionally think of as 'role playing games', but the game tries very hard to make you play the role of Arthur Morgan and consider what that means to the story and the world that he inhabits. It does so by giving real consequences to simple things like bumping into an NPC and to not paying attention as to where or how fast you're riding your horse.

Some complain these things make the game a bit too realistic and this kind of realism makes the game a chore to play at times. I can understand that, but over time I really came to appreciate the weight this design philosophy added to the game. It creates a cohesive and consistent experience in the gameplay and narrative, greatly enhancing the experience of both as a result.

The game is a slow burn, it has unusual pacing and it sometimes feel a bit cyclical whilst you're making your way through the story. This made the experience feel less like a 2-3 hour film, where the build up is typically fairly linear (due to time constraints) and more like a TV series. Video games such as this typically do feel more like films, often very long films, but still - the goals of the games industry at this level are often to be film-like.

Red Dead Redemption 2 doesn't come across like that me and does feel more like a short TV series. It knows its end game and wants to use the ebbs and flows of a series format to establish and embed its themes. In the latter stages of the story, that cyclical characteristic of the narrative becomes clear - that it is the intention - and your experience of that meshes nicely with the realisations and motivations of Arthur.

I won't say RDR2 has the best narrative in a video game, I won't say it has the best acting, writing or plot (although aspects of these do peak among the highest in the industry at points). I will say that I believe it has managed to set a new standard in dealing with an age-old problem in video games, and that's the disconnect between gameplay systems, the linear story telling and the playable worlds these games provide.

Detail and technology

Red Dead Redemption 2 is the biggest leap in Rockstar world design since Grand Theft Auto 3 brought us its 3d open world. I'll be clear though, unlike GTA3, a revolution this is not. It's an iteration, it's also very much still in the 'theme park' category of open world games.

Let's start with the animation systems, the amount of unique animations for even the most mundane and infrequent action is incredible. It's not just quantity - it's that they have so many and they're of the highest quality, in an open world where the number of variables to account for is high. This is linear-single-player campaign level stuff, but more and better. How they justified going to these excesses is beyond me, but it added a lot to the game I believe.

Moving on to the wider technical quality, no open world Grand Theft Auto game, nor the previous Red Dead Redemption game has ever launched in such a good state. It has pretty good performance (though towns can be a bit rough), but more impressively - a very stable and clean image. I'm a snob when it comes to image quality and performance - and even on a base PS4 - this game didn't disappoint.

It looks absolutely fantastic, the rendering technology is - like the animation system - on the level of top tier linear-single-player games, except in an open world. It nails the atmospheric effects, weather systems, the density of the environment, everything. Draw distance and LoD is also great, I'm not sure how they did it - but LoD transitions are very good and hardly noticeable unless you're deliberately looking for it.

It all comes together leave this particular picky idiot.. with not much to complain about. I want to play it at a higher resolution, at a higher framerate, I want to dial up the effects and other qualities - when (or.. if) it comes to PC. But, unlike many other games I'm forced to play on consoles, I wasn't unhappy with the technical experience here.

For a Rockstar open world game, this is a fairly unusual experience. Red Dead Redemption 1 on PS3 and 360 was rough, GTA4 and GTA5 were even worse - poor performance and bad image quality. Not the case with Red Dead Redemption 2, I don't feel like I can reasonably complain too loudly about anything here.

Finally, looping back around to general detail and effort put into this game. The interactions between characters, be it characters in the story - or random NPCs is incredibly impressive. They react interestingly, have fairly unique interactions and routines and they feed into the world in believable ways. This isn't a systems driven game, and you will eventually begin spotting patterns which start to break down the illusions - but it took a while for me - and it didn't take away from my first experiences of these things.

It's in the eyes

One thing I want to single out, as I haven't seen it mentioned often in discussions about this game is the detail in the character's eyes, particular Arthur's. I suspect this is largely a result of good acting, but the technology and artists needed to come together to make the expression in Arthur's eyes during particular moments so convincing.

We've had games which have had as detailed, or more detailed faces and motion capture - but I've never had a character so believably sell their emotion to me through the eyes as I did from Arthur's scenes. This is one of the things I remember most when I think about this game and because eyes are so fundamental to how we perceive each other as humans, getting it right has a big impact on story telling and characterisation.

I gave you all I had..

It's hardly the game I expected, and despite my seemingly never ending praise in this post for it, I did have a fair few problems with the game that have left me with that "I'm not quite sure how much I enjoyed it" feeling. But I am appreciative and full of respect for what this game is.

Red Dead Redemption 2 is an unbelievable achievement in so many ways and as I said at the top of the post, I do genuinely believe it is a game that will be seen as one that set a new standard in the industry.

]]>As I explained in my post about the Bang & Olufsen H6s, I'm not an audiophile, I don't know what I'm talking about - so take everything you read here with a pinch of salt. But I bought another pair of headphones, in some ways to replace the H6s -]]>https://blog.qassim.uk/2018/10/20/sony-mx/5bcbabcd54064212101a863eSat, 20 Oct 2018 22:58:22 GMTAs I explained in my post about the Bang & Olufsen H6s, I'm not an audiophile, I don't know what I'm talking about - so take everything you read here with a pinch of salt. But I bought another pair of headphones, in some ways to replace the H6s - but not for any fault of the H6s.

I wanted a wireless pair of noise cancelling headphones. I've never been a huge fan of noise cancelling headphones because every pair I've tried have always sounded a little off to me and perhaps more importantly, I didn't have a real reason to need noise cancelling headphones. When I began to have a reason, working in more noisier open offices, I still didn't want to sacrifice sound quality.

As wireless headphones have got better, from wireless and sound performance, to other smart features and continued noise cancelling improvements, I began to feel the pull. I was interested in either the Bose QC35s or Sony WH1000XM2, they seemed to be the two top competitors, with either being better than the other at different things. I mostly preferred what I heard about the Sony's so settled on giving those a try.

Sony announced and released a new revision (WH1000XM3) , which has judging by reviews, given itself a more convincing edge in many areas over the Bose set. I'm sure Bose will respond in time though, it has been a competitive race so far - no real reason to believe it will end now.

The revision to the Sony set pushed me to actually commit to finally buying them, the better active noise cancelling, USB-C charging & the cool new copper accents made what was already an attractive proposition, even more so.

Verdict

They're good, everything I wanted them for - they work fantastically. Wireless and noise cancelling performance and the smart features (the touch controls, Google assistant integration and noise cancelling options / additions) are great. They're not, however, as good as the B&O H6's for sound quality and the difference is not insignificant.

I did expect this, wireless headphones are very good these days, but not that good yet. In addition, active noise cancelling does affect audio quality and I accepted that trade off before I bought them. Overall, the sound is just mushier and less clear, the bass is a bit too heavy and noisy in comparison. It has an equaliser you can play with, but I haven't wanted to yet - I'll have a proper look eventually. Update: I've since gotten into the equaliser and configured a nicer profile, but largely - my criticisms still stand.

But, out of the box, the Sony's keep my H6's in use when I really want a light, portable, easy to drive pair of headphones to appreciate music in. That use case is mostly at home, but I'm happy with that.

Battery life is also very good and USB-C charging is convenient. An increasing number of things can be charged from the two USB-C MacBook Pro chargers I have around, adding another device that can fit under this umbrella is useful and satisfying.

Comfort, they are better than the B&O H6's, which are pretty comfortable. Where I'd have to take a break after 1.5-2 hours in the H6s, I've worn the Sony's for 3-4 hours at a time with barely thinking about comfort. So there's a nice improvement there, and given the intended use for the Sony's (at work, commuting, walking at lunch, etc) - this is a significant upgrade.

My main complaints about the Sony WH1000XM3 are:

Multi device support is might as well be non-existent. You can pair them to two devices and swap between two without too much effort if you set them up in a certain way, but it's not worth the effort and is a bit annoying. I believe the Bose do a better job here. The pairing process is fast if you want to just a hard swap, so it's not a huge deal, but given their competitors do this better - I expect better.

The microphones for call quality aren't great, they're functional, but I'm not sure I'd deliberately take a call in them.

Overall though, I'm very happy with them and would recommend them to anyone looking for a wireless pair of active noise cancelling headphones in this price bracket (£330).

As I said in my post about the H6s though, go and read a review by someone who actually knows what they're talking about before making purchase decisions..

]]>I'll skip over things I've covered in previous months unless I have anything additional to add.

Spider-Man (PS4)

Excellent game, a load of fun. Focuses mostly on the right things to make a good Spider-Man game. The cinematic quality of many of the missions, especially the big boss fights are

Spider-Man (PS4)

Excellent game, a load of fun. Focuses mostly on the right things to make a good Spider-Man game. The cinematic quality of many of the missions, especially the big boss fights are really impressive, and the story and characters were surprisingly well developed.

I got somewhat close to getting the platinum trophy for this game by accident, I never trophy hunt (God of War earlier this year was the first time for me), but that emphasises how much I just enjoyed playing the game to go and do the small side distractions.

I'm looking forward to the DLC, I'll almost definitely be getting that (depending on other games released at that time).

Deadpool 2

I wasn't really a fan of the first Deadpool film, it was fun, but the novelty wears off quite quickly and doesn't carry it as far as I think it did for many others. But that might not be purely the fault of the film alone, the character itself was never particularly compelling for me.

Deadpool 2 was an improvement, I don't regret watching it, but like the first film - it didn't leave much of an impression.

Avengers: Infinity War

I've enjoyed the recent Marvel films, they've got a formula and people who know how to make fundamentally sound films. They've settled in to the characters and everything is just falling together quite nicely, so they're all much easier to enjoy than they used to be.

Infinity War is, as we all know, a culmination of the last decade of MCU films and the execution is impressive. It's tight, focused and weighty. Will I rush out to see the next Avengers film at the cinema rather than waiting for the blu-ray release? I'm still not sure, but I'm certainly a lot more likely than I was before Infinity War, so that's an achievement in itself.

Solo: A Star Wars Story

Star Wars isn't special anymore. The Force Awakens was a technically sound, but unambitious and rather plain entry, Rogue One was more interesting but was uneven and ultimately, surprisingly, weightless. The Last Jedi was a mess, but had higher peaks than the other two films by far (and deeper troughs). There are bright points, I think the cast are great, some new characters are great, but the cadence of releases coupled with the up-and-down quality of them has just spoiled any excitement I had for the series.

This is why I didn't see Solo at the cinema like I did with the The Force Awakens, The Last Jedi and Rogue One. However, it is film I had the least amount of problems with. The way Han Solo's backstory was set up, getting the familiar pieces in place, felt needlessly rushed. But, it was enjoyable, great cast and cool characters.

I'm somewhat interested in seeing where they take it from here, which is more than what I can say for the rest of the franchise.

Shadow of the Tomb Raider (PC)

The Tomb Raider reboot games (since 2013) have been rather good. Clearly inspired by the developments to the.. genre.. Uncharted aped from the older Tomb Raider games, but in a way that I actually preferred. I think the games play better than Uncharted, they're not as flashy or as cinematic - and that's a deliberate decision for the most part - they're not going for the same things.

Shadow of the Tomb Raider feels a bit confused as to what it wants to be. It has de-emphasised combat, but has seemingly retained many mechanics and characteristics of the previous games which were there to support combat. I'm actually quite happy with the decision to balance away from combat and more towards exploration and puzzles, but the upgrades and area structure feels misleading and disconnected.

You're encouraged to upgrade your combat equipment and skills, but many of the upgrades I've chosen have yet to feel necessary. I am really enjoying the game though, as I did the previous, they are good games, just each time they narrowly being something even better.

Forza Horizon 4 (PC)

The Forza Horizon games are some of the best racing games, ever. Forza Horizon 4 is a worthy entry to the series, that it's set in Britain is even better. I have a few gripes around the AI and the newer progression system, but overall - a brilliant game.

]]>As usual, these are just the highlights from this month.

Better Call Saul

When I first heard that a Breaking Bad spin-off had been commissioned, based on the character Saul Goodman, I was interested - because Breaking Bad was brilliant - but I didn't have high expectations.

The name, "Better

]]>https://blog.qassim.uk/2018/09/02/month-in-review-august-2018-2/5b8b111b1baa6b04efaf9a0aSat, 01 Sep 2018 23:32:36 GMTAs usual, these are just the highlights from this month.

Better Call Saul

When I first heard that a Breaking Bad spin-off had been commissioned, based on the character Saul Goodman, I was interested - because Breaking Bad was brilliant - but I didn't have high expectations.

The name, "Better Call Saul" lowered my expectations a bit more. But I was wrong to doubt, now in its fourth season, it remains some of the absolute best TV out there. The 'origin' story, the characterisation and the style, pacing and direction of the show are not at all what I expected, but it's brilliant. It's quite slow, but that's far from a bad thing - it's tense and always intriguing.

Breaking Bad was almost relentless (especially in the later seasons) in ramping everything up, which was fantastic - but this is a change of pace and actually a welcome one. I feel like this could comfortably go on at a high quality for quite a while - there's so much to explore before we end up where Breaking Bad picks up and the series presumably ends.

Berkhamsted Revisited

A podcast, described as:

A podcast about growing up awkwardly! From age 13, @laurakirk12 kept a diary on teen life in Berkhamsted. Now 26, she's reading it back

The hosts, Laura Kirk and Laura Gallop are exactly my age and are British. So our school experiences are very similar to mine (with some relatively minor regional and maybe.. class differences). At first, when I heard the podcast advertised by another - I (stupidly) assumed it wasn't aimed at me. And by me, I mean, men. But the clips played in the advertisements interested me enough to give it a try - and I'm glad I did.

It's nostalgic, genuinely funny and well produced. I feel a bit silly for making the odd demographic assumption about this, but apparently I'm not alone! A BBC article released a few days ago about the podcast explains not only did other men assume the podcast wasn't for them, but in fact - the podcast is broadly popular with men too.

After Laughter (Paramore)

I've never really listened to Paramore before, it was never really my thing, but last year their "Hard Times" single caught my ear on the new releases on YouTube and I really quite liked it. I knew this was a departure for the band, into a more pop style and maybe that's why it grabbed me.

So over the past year or so, I've had the full album on my 'all music' playlist and listened to tracks here and there. But only this past month have I really given it a proper listen, and it's great! Great vocals, great production and a cool retro-pop style. There's only one, maybe two tracks I'm not too keen on - the rest are crackin'

Kamikaze (Eminem)

From Paramore to Eminem, and this sneaks in just in the very last day - but it has got a lot of playtime already.

I'm a long time Eminem fan, I grew up on TSSLP & MMLP, and it has been a bit rocky this past decade. His latest album (Revival) was weird to say the least. Odd production, strange focus and just a general lack of quality. It was widely criticised - from the more mainstream pop fans, to the hardcore hip hop heads.

The reaction clearly irked Eminem, because he released this album without the slightest hint it was even coming. His 'release comment' was simply:

Tried not 2 overthink this 1... enjoy.🖕

Whatever his process for putting this album out, it's a success as far as I'm concerned. The highs of this album are the highest I've seen from him in probably 10 years, I'm not sure if the baseline quality is quite as good as Marshall Mathers LP 2, but the peaks are definitely higher.

Three tracks in particular, "The Ringer", "Fall" and "Lucky You" are brilliant. The album is a direct response to the reception of Revival, in some parts seemingly accepting the criticism, in other parts rebuking it. He's angry at the criticism that he's expected not to answer.

Being the most successful ever hiphop artist, and one of the most successful music artists ever, he's expected to rise above it. But this is a genre of music founded on competition and expecting one of the best ever competitors to not compete is something Eminem clearly finds unfair. He goes in on almost everyone and it's great. The lyricism, wordplay, flow and subject matter on those two particular tracks alone are almost everything I want out of Eminem.

Why I always found Eminem so compelling is the emotion in his music. He had sick, horrible and disgusting lyrics and scenarios he dreamed up based on his real life situations and circumstances. He's seemingly in a good place now, he's older (45!), he can provide very well for his family and he's sober. So his subject matter has obviously shifted, and likely can't and shouldn't go back to where it started.

What he has left to bring out those strong emotions is now largely very rap/hip-hop focused. Defending his legacy, dealing with the burden of his legacy, proving he's still as technically skilled as he once was. Dealing with naturally not being as big, current or popular as he was.

I think in many ways Eminem of today is more technically skilled than he ever has been, though it's perhaps not as effortless for him as it once was. New subject matter, new circumstances all make it seem a lot more deliberate these days and perhaps leads to overthinking and second guessing himself.

I'm happy with the album, it hasn't been fun, as a fan, to see him struggle as he has.

Counter-Strike: Global Offensive

It has been a while since I last properly played CS. By a while, I mean at least a year and it has been even longer since I bothered with ranked matchmaking, closer to two years.

I always come back to Counter-Strike, I may not play for 6 months, a year - but I have always come back. It's the definitive competitive multiplayer video game as far as I'm concerned.

Ranked competitive matchmaking has improved a lot since I last tried it. People are no longer screaming at each other for the smallest mistakes anymore, generally friendly, generally take it less seriously. This could have been the result of a few things:

The game isn't as popular as it was when I last played ranked competitive play. Games like PUBG and Fortnite have sucked up a large audience. It seems likely that many of the remaining players are more seriously into Counter-Strike, which generally results in better quality matches.

TrustFactor, Prime matchmaking and better reporting. Good players are more consistently matched with other good players, and the same with bad players (and by bad - I mean their behaviour).

The only real problem I've faced is that I'm a pretty good player (I have been playing CS in some way for probably 14-15 years). Unfortunately, the ranking system seemingly has a decay - and ranking recalibrations have happened whilst I was absent from the ranking system - meaning that on my return, I was ranked quite a bit lower than my old rank.

Initially, that didn't seem like a real problem. But I've won about 20 out of my last 25 matches and consistently have the most kills by a reasonable margin. I suspect I am actually ranked lower than I should be, I've been getting a lot of accusations of being a 'smurf' (someone who deliberately ranks lower than their actual skill level to have easy games). So this is a bit of a blemish on my experience, it's not fair on other players and it has kinda taken the tension out of my matchmaking games for now.

I am ranking up still, but it may take a while to get to where the skill gap isn't quite so pronounced. Don't get me wrong, I'm not an absolute top tier player - I'd say top 15-20% in terms of mechanical skill and general game knowledge - but I feel like I'm getting matched with top 40-45% players at the moment.

Regardless. I'm enjoying the game a lot again. The game has had some good updates in my absence, a great new UI overhaul, great new map redesigns, continually refined balancing and the aforementioned improvements to matchmaking. I'm looking forward to the upcoming Major tournament (in London), even if I'm no longer up to date with the pro scene.

]]>This is my hopefully monthly post dedicated to writing something about some 'standout' bits of entertainment I've consumed. It definitely won't be everything, just the things that stand out (for good or bad).

Blood of Elves (Witcher book series)

This is my hopefully monthly post dedicated to writing something about some 'standout' bits of entertainment I've consumed. It definitely won't be everything, just the things that stand out (for good or bad).

Blood of Elves (Witcher book series)

As in last month's post, The Last Wish and Sword of Destiny are the first two books in the Witcher book series and are a collection of short stories to essentially set up the world and characters.

After finishing those, I moved onto the 'main event': The novels. Blood of Elves is the beginning and picks up from one of the stories from Sword of Destiny.

The short stories that preceded Blood of Elves were enjoyable, but it's good to finally get into the meat of the series. Whilst the games did a fantastic job at standing independently of the novels, they were still very much based on the novels. It's great to experience how it all 'began', the development of favourite characters from the start and the events that caused those that happened in the games.

Time of Contempt (Witcher book series)

The next in the series following Blood of Elves, I'm not too far in, so there's not much for me to say yet but it does feel like it's moving towards the type of thing I enjoyed the games for.

My only real complaint of the series so far is the dialogue scenes between characters can sometimes be a bit difficult to follow. It might be a fault of the translations, it might just be how they were written originally. It's not a huge deal, but I do find myself re-reading sections occasionally.

I, Tonya

This was quite a surprise. Everyone knows something about the incident involving ice skaters Tonya Harding & Nancy Kerrigan. It not much older than I am, but still something I've seen and heard referenced many times during my life.

The film was funny but also quite sad. It found the humour in a ridiculous and nasty situation, but also made Tonya Harding - the accused - a sympathetic figure. Detailing her struggles in competing due to her working class background in a sport dominated by the middle class.

One of the best films I've seen all year, Margot Robbie was excellent as the title character. I'd definitely recommend it.

The Shape of Water

Try not to judge the odd premise, because this is a film I can't fault for its awards. Over a month later and it's still a film I'm thinking about. Wonderful story and characters, incredible performances, brilliant world building, aesthetic and sound.

It's genuinely great.

Mortimer and Whitehouse: Gone Fishing

I wrote about this last month, about how nice and joyful it was, but unfortunately it has ended after just six episodes. Thankfully, however - it's getting a new series!

It's nice, funny, warm and feels real. Always came out of each episode with a smile of my face.

Ready Player One

I wasn't expecting much from this. I wasn't particularly interested in the premise, the novelty of seeing all these video game and pop culture characters in a film wasn't doing much for me either.

So I went in with with indifference. But I enjoyed it. The film was compelling and fun, not much more to say - for this month, it went up against two fantastic films (above), so it's maybe unfair to judge it based on that, but I got what I hoped I would get out of it.

It's full of holes, it tries to coast on all the references to video games and video game culture quite a lot, but I'm not one to be offended by that - it just wasn't particularly effective for me.

]]>In yet another attempt to try and write more, I thought I'd give writing a monthly review of the 'entertainment' I've consumed. Books, films, TV shows, games, podcasts and music. Being so broad may also help me keep these brief.

In yet another attempt to try and write more, I thought I'd give writing a monthly review of the 'entertainment' I've consumed. Books, films, TV shows, games, podcasts and music. Being so broad may also help me keep these brief.

Really though, I know I'm unlikely to more than a couple of months of these.

The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt

I've been itching to replay The Witcher 3 since my completion of the base game back in 2015, then again on completion of the Blood & Wine Expansion in 2016. But I always put it off because it's such a large game, but having nothing else to play, I finally bit the bullet and started again.

I'm so glad I did, I've completed it all again, expansions 'n all and it has only reaffirmed its place as one of my all time favourite games. It's just so full of personality and character, yeah the combat could be improved and the horse controls are incredibly frustrating but those things don't matter much to me.

It's a very special game, and I can't wait to give it another play through in a few years time.

The Last Wish

Encouraged by my repeat play through of The Witcher 3, I decided I needed to give the books the games are based on a real try. Their English translations are relatively recent, but they are, as far as I can tell, a fairly big deal over in Poland. "Our Tolkien" is how I've seen the author, Andrzej Sapkowski, described on occasion. The then Prime Minister of Poland, Donald Tusk, presented The Witcher 2 (video game) as a gift to Barack Obama during his visit in 2011, to give some idea of what The Witcher means in Poland.

I started with The Last Wish, the first 'The Witcher' book released. It's a collection of short stories, many of which were familiar to me due to the games. They were referenced or were the origins of many key relationships in the games, for example, the title 'The Last Wish' short story.

So as a fan of the games, the book increased my appreciation for them and for the universe in general. The background the games gave me, I think, increased my enjoyment of the book. Moments of "ah, that's how that came to be" that retroactively provided very satisfying detail to my view of The Witcher universe.

The author has been far from kind to the games, primarily it seems due to the fact he arrogantly dismissed the prospect of a successful video game based on his works and refused to take royalties in return for the video game rights. Instead, he opted to take what was at the time a small up front lump sum for CD Projekt, the game's developers, to secure the rights.

He seems somewhat bitter at the massive success of the game, at the international audience his works has gained as a result of the games, and refuses to accept that the games provided his books with a bigger audience and even makes bizarre claims like the games are popular internationally because of his books.

All that aside, it was a really enjoyable read. I'm a fan of Andrzej's work even if I disagree with his attitude towards the games.

Sword of Destiny

Off the back of the The Last Wish, I jumped straight into the second 'The Witcher' book, also a collection of short stories. I found this one a bit more difficult to read, but still very enjoyable in large part due to the new stories I had not even seen hints of in the games.

Sword of destiny also sets up many key characters and plots found in the games (and I believe in the main saga, which begins after this book). It took me a little longer get through this, as I found it a bit more awkward to follow along at times. That said, the new characters, new stories and the added context and background to stories and characters I was already familiar with in the games made this another great read.

Mortimer & Whitehouse: Gone Fishing

Due to the incredible Athletico Mince podcast by Andy Dawson and Bob Mortimer, I found a renewed appreciation for Mortimer. As such this TV show couldn't have come at a better time.

It's just really nice and a load of fun. It combines a few things I appreciate quite a lot: Bob Mortimer, Paul Whitehouse and fishing. I'm just sad we're already 3 episodes in to a 6 episode series, I'm going to miss it a lot when it's over.

Black Panther

I'm not a fan of going to the cinema. I think it's a bad experience, so I don't go for anything except major, major releases which I care about not being spoiled. The MCU films are enjoyable, but they don't justify going to the cinema for, so I waited for the blu-ray release of Black Panther.

It was fun, it was a well constructed film, but it didn't leave a particularly strong impression on me. Cool concepts and great cast.

The Darkest Hour

It's hard to describe this better than it has already been, it's a really great film highlighted by the great performances, in particular of the always brilliant Gary Oldman as Churchill.

I admired the restraint of the film for the most part, with just one or two areas which I felt were dangerously close to causing significant damage to my opinion of the film. Exaggerated, unrealistic and pandering a bit too much to the myth and legend of Churchill.

These were just a few scenes though, and in the end, they didn't ruin what is a brilliant film.

]]>https://blog.qassim.uk/2018/03/31/cloud-atlas/5abedb29c087880631d68ef9Sat, 31 Mar 2018 00:52:56 GMTI went into Cloud Atlas (film) knowing next to nothing about it or the novel on which it is based on. All I knew was that it was a Sci-Fi by the Wachowskis.

It has an unusual premise, it's a set of stories set across 6 different time periods. Many different characters are played by the same actor, with each of the key characters possessing an identical birthmark (which I ultimately think wasn't necessary, it may have been clearer in the book). The point to remember here is that you're supposed to understand early on that there's a connection between these characters across these different settings and time periods, there's little ambiguity here.

So I'll start by saying that it's definitely one of the more interesting films I've seen for a multitude of reasons that extend beyond the actual product. The bravery, ambition and integrity required to see a film made like this is - to me at least - worthy of admiration, regardless of how you feel about the final result.

This is a film that tests your patience and rarely stops to encourage you by the way of hints of where you expect to end up. At 2 hours and 52 minutes, it's a long film and it's a slow burn. As you're aware that there is some kind of connection between these characters, you are perhaps directed along a certain path, to find the commonalities.

It's easy to assume there's a big pay off coming, what is the connection between these characters? It can't be that these sometimes minor details crossing between stories are it? That the composed works of one character is listened to by another in another era? But actually yeah, I think that was supposed to be it. The elaborate stories of these individual characters are really only connected by these sometimes thin threads and that is the point.

As the film draws to an end, as each story wraps up to their dramatic end, positive or otherwise, it does become clear. It is a 3 hour film that is about the small ways in which individuals are connected and how their actions, in often small ways can eventually play a part in big events and changes in our world or other people's lives.

I can understand how this may feel dissatisfying, 3 hours without something we'd traditionally call a 'big pay off' is a bold move, but at least without having read the book, it does seem like this is necessary. These subtle connections and small actions are the point.

What is an ocean but a multitude of drops?

There are probably some good arguments to be made against many of the decisions in how this film was made. Should the film adaptation strayed further from the original novel in order to be more digestible and.. respectful.. of the audience and their time? Maybe.

However I don't think I would have felt quite so positively about it had they done that. I do think the approach taken, whilst naturally flawed given the scale of the film, is the right one to achieve the intended effect.

]]>Pair programming can be a useful tool on a team of software developers. Twice the brain power*, more eyes on one problem, more perspectives and greater opportunity for knowledge sharing.

However, I feel it's highly situational and it isn't something that can be forced broadly. Applying it so broadly reduces

]]>https://blog.qassim.uk/2018/03/11/pair-programming/5aa4721a4681ec0620009b1eSun, 11 Mar 2018 00:02:47 GMTPair programming can be a useful tool on a team of software developers. Twice the brain power*, more eyes on one problem, more perspectives and greater opportunity for knowledge sharing.

However, I feel it's highly situational and it isn't something that can be forced broadly. Applying it so broadly reduces productivity, increases frustration in the team and can reduce the quality of output on certain kinds of tasks.

I think very traditional pair programming and the techniques applied can be beneficial and it should be available as a tool to teams, I'm not here to dismiss the practice, more-so challenge the dogmatic attitude to pair programming that can be found in some teams. Specifically, the attitudes which applies it broadly and which strictly applies techniques such as driver-navigator, ping-pong, etc.

In my experience, when asked to pair with someone - it's often fine and appropriate, but in many cases it hasn't been. In some cases I've been able to steer away my partner to an approach I think works better for many kinds of tasks.

I have found for certain kinds of tasks (identifying them relies on intuition, it's hard to create rules to classify this), it's more useful to have each developer work how they work most optimally as a developer, which often means: somewhat independent, at least in the mechanical sense.

Solving a puzzle requires concentration and focus, something that can be much harder to achieve when you're having to process through the thoughts and actions of your partner in a pair programming exercise too.

When approaching an open-ended task, one that requires investigation and understanding of a wider system before certain tasks can be completed, I've found a good approach to be one that has two people working on the same problem, but in a mostly independent way, to have them on their own computers - next to each other - to be utilising their own personal approaches for tackling problems. To investigate, experiment, prototype and to talk constantly about what they're finding and what/how they're doing it.

The idea is that you're allowing developers to utilise all their own best approaches for solving problems, they're not constrained by how someone else works and thinks about problems. You're allowing developers to get into and through the meat of the problem quicker with a better understanding, because they're allowed to use all the (mental) tools they know best, they're not trying to teach someone else to use their tools, they're not being guided on how to use someone else's either.

One developer may get to a milestone before the other, like an understanding of a certain component of a system, which can then be presented to the other - then you get their thoughts and understanding on that once you have transferred the knowledge you reached before them. You benefit from the other perspective, you bring your partner up to speed and then you go back to working towards the next milestone.

You share ideas and come to agreements on how code will be written, you present back your code and decide with which approach to go for, perhaps it'll be neither, perhaps you'll discover something new about the problem in the process of presenting your findings and approaches

I suppose my thoughts are that having two developers work on one problem is often very useful, but the methods in which many try to make this happen can be oppressive, frustrating and sometimes counter-productive. To allow developers the freedom to work in their own ways, whilst also benefiting from the extra perspective, the open dialogue and kind of 'brain storming' of findings and ideas, feels like an approach more suited for more of the situations developers find themselves in.

Before yesterday (Thursday, 8th of February 2018), I had never seen Blade Runner. It was a film people constantly referenced, it's a film of which I had seen and heard of it's influence. But it wasn't one of those 'classic' films which is readily presented to a regular audience (e.g. on TV), so it was always going to be something I had to seek out on the back of recommendations if I were to see it. This is especially true given the film is about 10 years older than I am.

With the release of Blade Runner 2049 and the good reviews that received, I finally decided I needed to watch Blade Runner in preparation for 2049. So I bought the blu-ray released... and then didn't watch it. I'm not entirely sure why, but I ended up then waiting for the blu-ray release of 2049, which I received this week.

With that, I have some thoughts on Blade Runner, although more about 2049 and how I think it holds up as a sequel.

First of all, I really enjoyed both films, they're definitely among my all time favourite films.

There's nothing I can say about the original that hasn't already been said many times over in the decades since its release, but I do think I have maybe an uncommon perspective given how late I watched Blade Runner for the first time and how soon after I watched its sequel after that first viewing.

Blade Runner 2049 is one of the most faithful film sequels I have ever seen. It's faithful to the original vision, faithful to the style, direction and pacing, key themes and cinematography. Crucially, however - it's not a retread, it's not just an homage to the original it's a true continuation.

It explores and expands on what the original began in almost all ways, it recognises that much of the ambiguity of the original wasn't necessarily there to be cleared up, but to keep on providing questions. 2049 feels like it retroactively improves the original by giving more weight to plot, which is perhaps one of the best markers of success for a film sequel.

There's some legitimate criticism out there for 2049, however. It sometimes (update: maybe one or two scenes in the whole film) goes off and spends a bit too much time peering into it's own arsehole and as such the film has sections that should have probably been cut out.

Even if those scenes weren't necessary and probably made the film less accessible than it needed to be, there was something cool in every scene. Be it the soundtrack, the visuals or some cool world building, there was always something I'm glad I experienced.. even if many editors would have cut them out.

But I personally don't knock the film for any of this. I think such indulgence can be good and I think it's great here.

Both of these films were made by people who understand the potential of cinema. Film isn't just an iteration on theatre with fancier sets and effects, it's so much more (and many will argue less in some areas). The toolbox available to tell a story implicitly through carefully crafted scenes, appropriately aligned and sequenced, is utilised in these films in ways few films even begin to understand, let alone approach.

The themes in these films aren't new or terribly complex, they're quite fundamental questions asked and explored throughout human history, but in both Blade Runner and even more so in Blade Runner 2049, the ability to linger and employ a kind of visual meditation to get to these questions brings a different kind of depth and perspective that does feel unique to film.

Lorde's first album, Pure Heroine (2013), from the then-16/17 year old was one of my favourite albums of that year. It had a cool sound, it was a little out there and most of all was full of promise. It was simple and accessible, it was a combination perfect for a debut album.

Melodrama (2017) is Lorde's second album and one I was looking forward to. It released in June and my initial impressions were good, I really liked it. Perhaps it was a matter of timing, but I didn't actually listen to it much after my first listen, I was happy with it - but it didn't leave an impression akin to the first album.

A month after release, I flicked down my Spotify 'all music' playlist to my latest additions. Melodrama was still one of the latest, so I started from the beginning of the track list.

I was at home, listening on a good pair of headphones, full blast.

My opinion went from "pretty cool" to "fuckin' brilliant" by the time I had finished that single run through. Perhaps Melodrama isn't quite as accessible as the first, but that's not to say it isn't - it very much is - I just perhaps went in with different expectations and that threw me off.

But either way, from the more mature and emotive writing, to the incredibly cool and varied sound and production, I absolutely adored this album. What's more is that in the five months since, my adoration has only grown. It's one of my all time favourite albums, it just gets so much right for me.

This is an album I often save for when I'm at home. I sit down, put my headphones on - crank the volume - and just listen to all the way through. It's one of the albums that when flicking through my music library on my commute that I'll often skip past in order to save it for when I get home so I can get the 'full experience'.

The greatness in this album is complete, it's not just a cool theme or writing, it's everything it comes together as, so I want to make sure I'm experiencing it all when I'm listening to it. It's the promise of good pop music fulfilled.

I can't guarantee you'll like it, or find it anywhere near as special as I do, music is way too subjective to make any such claims. But I do hope if you enjoy good pop music to drop any preconceived ideas you had about Lorde or the type of music this may be and just give it a listen. My only listening advice would be to avoid 'Green Light' being your first track, it's a very good track, but is perhaps the safest and least interesting on a surface level, pick any other track and come back to 'Green Light'.

]]>I often hesistate to openly describe how I prefer to play certain kinds of games, because the way I play these games could suggest a certain disrespect for certain elements of a game. These are elements of a game which many people have often put a lot of time, effort]]>https://blog.qassim.uk/2017/11/18/destiny-2/5a10b5d898c83106264ed6b3Sat, 18 Nov 2017 23:38:57 GMT

I often hesistate to openly describe how I prefer to play certain kinds of games, because the way I play these games could suggest a certain disrespect for certain elements of a game. These are elements of a game which many people have often put a lot of time, effort and care into designing and implementing.

The elements I'm mostly describing are story, narrative, voice acting, sound design and music. These are all elements I care a lot about in games, but certain games are designed in such a way that some of these become secondary and they can be safely tuned out. So I do, these are games which I look forward to having in my current 'rotation' because they're games I can do other things whilst playing.

I can listen to podcasts, watch/listen to tv shows, audiobooks or even just my own music. The game sound will be turned down - not to silent - I can still hear it, but the primary sound will be this secondary media I'm listening to whilst playing the game.

The games I do this with often have a lot in common with each other, they involve repetitive tasks or they're purely mechanical. Some examples include racing games (Forza, Gran Turismo, F1), dungeon crawlers (e.g. Diablo) and strategy games (Civilization). I really look forward to these games, they may not demand 100% of my attention whilst I'm playing them, but they're just as valued as ones that do.

Whilst I did not play the original Destiny (I logged into the beta on PS4, used the dance emote and logged off), I long suspected that it would fit into this category of games and so my excitement for the Destiny 2 PC release was primarily based on this. My expectations for the game, then, was something that I could fire up at any time, start a podcast and start grinding away for some loot on.

For a game to fit into this category, it needs to have longevity in one way or another. Diablo - I can grind away for better and better loot, the ceiling is high and difficulty scales even higher. Forza, there are plenty of races for me to complete, challenges to attempt or simply repeat races to beat my times. Civilisation, well... there's always one more turn.

How is Destiny 2 doing then? It has been three and a half weeks since the PC release and it doesn't seem to be doing terribly well. Now - I wanted to describe my criteria for this game above because I think it's important to emphasise how specific they are, and therefore how potentially unfair my criticism of it is.

I feel like I'm beginning to hit the limit of the base game. I can go days before I get a bit of gear that will marginally increase my damage or defence and as such, the loot grind isn't satisfying enough. Part of this problem is perhaps that I don't do the Raids or Nightfall strikes. These are events which require you to team up and talk with other people, they offer no matchmaking to just get playing, it requires some organisation.

This obviously violates my criteria for the game, I don't want to listen to other team members.. or even talk to them.. I want that in other games (e.g. CSGO), but for this - I just want to mindlessly grind. Therefore, I only really have access to the daily challenges on public events and strikes to complete, which don't offer good loot with any real frequency.

The high level content is seemingly restricted to players who want to organise with other players to do raids, there's no real option for us mindlessly grinding solo players, am I justified in criticising the game for that? I'm not sure.

The side of me which thinks I am justified looks at the amount of content in the base game. It feels as if the game has been designed to incentivise you aggressively towards buying the expansions and to feel that barely a few weeks after the game release isn't great. Diablo 3, a game with a similar loot-oriented gameplay loop, launched in a pretty poor state. It was heavily criticised for failing to offer longevity to players - but I feel Destiny 2 is significantly worse than Diablo 3 was even in its worse state.

Diablo 3 also managed to significantly improve the base game by rebalancing difficulty and loot over the following year for free. Where Diablo 3 and Destiny 2 differ is in their approach to expansions, however - there seems to be an acceptance that the expansions for Destiny are just a necessary component of the game. Diablo 3 didn't have that reliance on a future expansion and I think it really shows in the longevity each of these two offered in the base game.

That is my primary disappointment with the game, so let me finally get on to what I like.

It's highly polished, it feels high quality, with an interesting universe and fundamentally solid mechanics. It feels good to play, it's smooth, it performs very well on PC and it looks good. The story was more motivating and compelling than I expected, given the framework in which these games usually develop stories within (i.e. not a tight, highly focused linear package). There's a reason why I have actually played so much of it in the past 3.5 weeks and it is because they do get a lot right.

It's just let down in the medium to long term by the content strategy and reliance on expansions. I'm not sure if I'll buy the expansions, it'll depend on whether or not another game can enter my games rotation and fill the need games like this usually do before the expansions release.

]]>I'm not an audiophile, I think I care a little more than your average person, but not a huge amount more. I don't have a lot of experience with a wide array of different types of headphones, or even models, so I don't feel like I can really review headphones.]]>https://blog.qassim.uk/2017/11/14/bang-olufsen-h6-2nd-generation/5a0b6d2298c83106264ed6abTue, 14 Nov 2017 22:54:29 GMT

I'm not an audiophile, I think I care a little more than your average person, but not a huge amount more. I don't have a lot of experience with a wide array of different types of headphones, or even models, so I don't feel like I can really review headphones.. or any audio gear.

So I won't, and I don't actually want to, but what I wanted to do was to write a simple recommendation. I have had these for around 15 months and they still consistently surprise and impress me. They're light, they're comfortable for long sessions, they're small for what they are and they sound excellent.

I repeat, I'm not an audiophile - so I'm not sure what in particular made the reviews for these stand out, but after reading a few, in particular those from Marco Arment and Vlad Savov - I (literally) ran out that day to my nearest Bang & Olufsen store and bought them.

I don't keep up with the headphone market, so I don't know if these are still as recommended as they were. I said earlier that I'm consistently surprised by these headphones and this surprise is what prompted me to write this.

I use these headphones every day on my commute (if it's raining, I'll fall back to my Jaybird X3s), I use them at work at my desk and I use them at home when I just want to listen to music on my laptop. So I'm always using them and yet, I still find myself being surprised at how good they are. They're not cheap at £240 RRP and they don't offer many things that some people are looking for in headphones, stuff like active noise cancellation or a tight seal to avoid disrupting others when the volume is high.

But if you're looking for a set of light, comfortable, good looking, portable headphones that are easy to drive and offer great sound quality - then I can't recommend these enough. There have been few things I've bought in the past few years which I have had such a consistently high positive opinion of as I have had with these.

Read some actual reviews if you're actually considering them though, I have no idea what I'm talking about and you shouldn't trust a word I say.

]]>It has been around a year since I bought my 15" 2016 MBP, just under since I 'reviewed' it.

I liked quite a lot about it, was excited about Thunderbolt 3 & USB-C, but had some concerns around long term comfort on the keyboard and a few

]]>https://blog.qassim.uk/2017/11/11/touchbar-macbook-pro-15-2016-2017-revisited/5a0781c698c83106264ed6a8Sat, 11 Nov 2017 23:04:09 GMTIt has been around a year since I bought my 15" 2016 MBP, just under since I 'reviewed' it.

I liked quite a lot about it, was excited about Thunderbolt 3 & USB-C, but had some concerns around long term comfort on the keyboard and a few other things. There were some battery concerns that have seemingly dissipated and the touchbar was of questionable value, but nothing really stood out as a massive issue for me - in those early days.

So what has happened in the past year? Well, quite a lot in regards to this particular story. I have been through three 2016 models and I'm currently on my 4th touchbar 15" Macbook Pro, a 2017 model. Let's start with reliability.

Reliability

First unit - 15" 2016
Picked it up the day they arrived in the stores in the UK. It developed a fault within a couple of weeks. One of the arrow keys and the 'T' key, they double pressed or didn't press at all when certain parts of the key was pressed. I exchanged it for a new unit as I was still within the extended Christmas return period.

Second unit - 15" 2016
Developed several faults over a few months, first the left speaker blew out - it lost bass. It blew when I just opened the laptop up from sleep, no real reason that I could tell. Then a few weeks later the treble blew on the right speaker when just randomly playing a regular video on twitter. This unit also developed an annoying creak.. and cracking sound as it warmed up through regular use (from cold), it was snapping and.. cracking.. periodically. It also creaked when certain parts of the display were pressed.

On top of all that, it also had a keyboard fault too - the comma key was depressed and wouldn't register properly.

So I took this second unit in for repair, they replaced basically the full top side - but couldn't determine the issue with the creaking so didn't replace the display. I got the repaired unit back after an extended (longer than quoted) repair time with a keyboard that was worse in every way. It was un-usable. The speakers were fixed, I was told I got a new battery and trackpad out of it too - but the keyboard was useless.

Having waited so long for a botched repair, I went back in the next day and asked for a new replacement unit I could take home then. Apple obliged.

Third unit - 15" 2016
This third unit didn't have the creaking at first, but developed it much earlier on than the last one. Then the speakers blew in a similar pattern (but in different circumstances) to the last one, the keyboard was fine, but I still had two annoying issues - faulty speakers and the creaking.

So I took it in for repair, I explained my persistent issues and the technician was very sympathetic. He didn't suggest a repair, and instead suggested a short triage (3 days) to confirm the issues and then provide me with a quicker solution than a repair would bring. I thought that was reasonable, I suspected they wanted to confirm there wasn't any damage caused by myself to the device before just giving me a new one.

5 days later, 2 days longer than they said they'd have a solution for me, it appears the information noted down by the technician (e.g. this was just a triage to determine whether to replace it or not) had not been passed down properly. They were suggested they would need to do a repair, so on top of the 5 days I already waited - they were asking for potentially another 10 days.

I explained the situation, what I was told, and I was passed on to a manager. He was listened, read through the notes again and asked if I could come into the store that day to pick up a new model. It was an equivalent priced 2017 model, so an upgrade. Newer generation CPU (Kaby Lake i7 7820HQ), 'newer' generation GPU and actually the tier above the one I had (Radeon Pro 455 2GB -> Radeon Pro 560 4GB), which is quite a sizeable upgrade. So all in all, I was happy with that.

At this point, it was about 10 months after buying the first machine, so I'd have rather not spent all this time messing about with an expensive laptop that should not have had the quality and reliability issues this had, but there was a silver..ish.. lining.

It has been a couple of months with this 2017 model and it doesn't seem to be exhibiting any of the problems I had previously, the creaking hasn't returned, the keyboard functions as expected.

Thunderbolt 3 / USB-C promise

The experience has been mixed. When it works, when it all comes together, it's brilliant. However, thunderbolt 3 accessories are still ridiculously expensive, full 'docks' are £200-£300, even dual display adapters are around £70, the latter I didn't mind paying for to get the setup I wanted.

I like to plug my laptop into my main desk setup (dual monitors, regular keyboard and mouse, usually plugged into my Windows desktop). This dual display device, some pre-routed cables/hubs and a keyboard switch has made the process of switching quite simple - not as simple as a proper dock and a switch, but for the money I'm saving - the 20 seconds extra I'm spending is not too bad.

USB-C has otherwise seen pretty good adoption, with the main issue remaining the hundred thousand different ways manufacturers can implement the USB-C standards, creating a bit of a fragmented and confusing market.

When it works, it's great, but expensive.

Keyboard

The keyboard is one of the biggest mistakes Apple has made in the last 10 years, easily. The primary issue is the reliability, the issues are seemingly quite widespread, repairing them is difficult - requiring a full top side replacement, keys are not designed to be removed and cleaned and can be broken if you attempt to do so. The design of the keyboard is so that small particles can render a key useless and all you can do without going for a full repair is hoping compressed air can get it out.

It's a simply unacceptable design. Now, from a usability perspective - I think it has many really positive points. The keys are wide, perfectly stable and offer a really nice chunky click. But there's next to zero travel, and that affects longer term comfort. This was my main worry in my original review and it has been confirmed. However, the bigger usability issue (ignoring reliability), turned out to be the awful arrow keys.

They are a stupid shape and they're indistinguishable from each other (up/down) when working at any kind of speed and touch typing (as is expected). But really, the conclusion here, is that the reliability is just unacceptable. The tolerances are far too low for a moving component that is used constantly through the life of the device.

I said in my original review that it may be not too far off being a really, really great keyboard. Add 15-20% more key travel and you have potentially one of the all time best laptop keyboards. That seems unlikely, but maybe after all the reliability issues, Apple may reconsider for their MacBook Pros.

TouchBar

I wasn't so pessimistic about it this time last year, at worst I thought I'd ignore it, and that has mostly been the case. It hasn't really proven itself outside of a few particular use cases to be any real addition to the device. I wouldn't miss it if it went away.

TouchID is cool though, if sometimes a bit slow, although I think it has improved somewhat in High Sierra. FaceID (from the iPhone X) does feel like it would be at home on a laptop though, perhaps more so than a fingerprint sensor.. so.. Apple.. ditch the Touchbar and give us a FaceID sensor array.

Finally

The reliability issues have soured me significantly on this device, but then I've come to not expect reliable laptops from Apple. I've had several MacBooks over the years and they have not been what I consider reliable - and had the Apple store not been a thing - I'd have probably long since abandoned the Mac, despite my preference for macOS.

There have been some indications that Apple are beginning to recognise the importance (indirectly) of their 'pro' and enthusiast market for the Mac and that they do want to address some of their (our) concerns of the Mac lineup. So I hope that happens, because overall - I am unsatisfied. My laptops are my development machines, moving to another laptop to use with some kind of Linux distribution may be in my future if I don't see Apple taking it a bit more seriously.

Update

I wrote this post as a separate one a while back (although after publishing the post above), I decided to cut out a lot of the crap from that one (although there's still plenty here), and add it on to here. The post I'm butchering was written purely because I wanted something to write about, not because I had much more to say.

Fixing the MacBook Pro

As I mentioned in a previous post, I think the keyboard has severe design issues. One of Marco's primary points is the keyboard, whilst I happen to like many things about the new keyboard (tactility, stability and accuracy) I do think there's a balance that can be made to make it more palatable for everyone*. But the primary issue is reliability, Marco's solution is one I can get on board with.

The second is ports, and I'll come to my views on this later on in a section about 'perspectives', but again - it kinda comes back to the whole idea of balance. USB-C and Thunderbolt 3 are mostly pretty great, especially for a pro machine. But is it necessary to have all ports be that? Probably not, so perhaps getting rid of one or two of them in favour of an SD card slot and a couple of USB-A ports would have gone a long way. The argument here is in favour of more versatility.

Also, another point I hadn't thought of myself - but one that seems obvious now. Apple should invest more themselves in creating USB-C and Thunderbolt 3 accessories, because the market out there is a bit confusing and actually not terribly competitive for certain types of Thunderbolt 3 accessories (e.g. docks, which Apple kinda of sold the future on).

Thirdly, Touch Bar. Getting rid of it is something I'd probably support at this point, I've had some issues with it more recently that have continued so I'm changing my stance - it's overall a net negative. It has introduced complexity where there shouldn't be, and that complexity has resulted in simple things like changing the volume to become a risky task, as if you're in certain apps in certain states and you change the volume, you may find yourself with a frozen Touch Bar. Utterly unresponsive for a 5-10 seconds... and all you want to do is change the volume. It's dumb, adds nothing but a cool look and detracts plenty. These issues have happened across the several laptops I've had, across Sierra and High Sierra (including latest betas).

TouchID is cool and it's not necessary for that to go should the Touch Bar be axed.

There are other points in there, which I personally think are minor or I don't actually agree with - so I'll leave that there. Overall, I actually do agree with many of the principles of Marco's arguments. However, these things are weighted a bit differently depending on your perspective.

Perspective

On the latest Accidental Tech podcast, Marco and Casey Liss argued on what these mean to different people. So my initial reaction to the all-thunderbolt-3 announcement of the latest MacBook Pros was one of excitement, I actually thought it was quite a cool idea. I understood it'd be a bit awkward in certain instances, but overall, I thought it was a good move. These were my immediate, very self-centred thoughts.

A few seconds later, you begin to think about the wider audience and understand a lot of people will not like this. But what other people like isn't necessarily my concern, so it didn't dampen my excitement.

Because this is where the different perspective comes into it. I use my laptops in a particular way. I (used to at least) carry it to and from work, plug it into a set of monitors, keyboard and mice and it'd just be sat on a desk untouched for the day. The extra functionality and versatility offered to me by having four high bandwidth ports that can do practically anything I need was super exciting for someone who uses their laptop in situation like this. At the end of the day, I'd unplug it very easily, go home and if I wanted to keep working on my laptop - I'd do the same on my home desktop setup (which is primarily used for my windows desktop, but can be used for my laptop too when I want to do some dev work).

When I use my laptop portably, I use it entirely individually - I rarely ever have anything else plugged into it, nor actually need to. Plugging into TVs in meeting rooms is probably the most common task, but those events are planned - and having a couple of dongles in the bag I carry my laptop in is a minor effort, but admittedly it's not as simple as simply having the compatible port on my laptop. But overall, as I said, I was geeking out about the possibilities afford by four high bandwidth ports that can do anything on my laptop.

My only attitude change in regards to all this over the past year has been.. I want this laptop to be more things to more people. It's better for the Mac ecosystem that more people feel well served by the available hardware and I think it would signal that Apple has a better understanding of their 'Pro' market. I'd sacrifice a couple of these ports for that.

I don't think Apple are too far from having something that a lot of people would like. I said at the top of this page that I do much prefer using this new model over the Retina MacBook Pro I use at work every day, here are the reasons:

Far better display (the panel itself, the coating and the housing)

Incredible speakers

Brilliant trackpad, the size is a big improvement - and over the past year I have not had a single accidental touch of it despite concerns.

TouchID

It looks and feels better (smaller, lighter, fit and finish of the body)

The keyboard is clicky with great feedback and accuracy, the old one is definitely still a good keyboard, but the keys are smaller and wobblier, so I'm less accurate and quick.

Thunderbolt 3 (doing more with less in my desktop setups).

There are solutions to the issues with the reliability of the keyboard, I hope if Apple does take action that it doesn't sacrifice too much of the things I like about it, but as I said previously, I'd sacrifice something so that we can get a device that appeals to more people.

The keyboard reliability is the biggest issue of this laptop, maybe I believe that because it is the issue I've had the most experience with. However, it also appears to be the one people speak about most (of those who actually use the device, the port situation is something people who use them don't seem to talk about so much, anecdotally).

I hope this is the last of these boring posts about a laptop. I'm not sure what makes me care so much about something most people don't give a second thought to a few weeks after buying, but I am a bit of a snob about the computer hardware I use and despite my efforts, I can't shake it off.